Technical system design plays an important role in the training of professionals working in industrial production companies. It enables professionals to develop multitechnical systems. Functional, structural and behavioral analysis approaches form the basis for teaching and learning about the design of multitechnical systems. In addition, various tools from the industrial world are associated with each approach and used in the teaching-learning activities of the mechanical design of technical systems. However, their use in mechanical design teaching and learning activities raises numerous problems, sometimes linked to the pedagogical exploitation of these analysis tools, their use and/or their appropriation by students. From an exploratory perspective, this article attempts to identify the factors that promote the effectiveness of students’ mechanical design learning process with functional analysis tools. After a description of the mechanical design learning context, students’ perceptions of functional analysis tools were collected using a questionnaire. The data collected from 89 students helped address questions related to the evaluation of functional analysis tools, their appropriation by students and the identification of factors likely to promote learning effectiveness. A statistical analysis was carried out to explore the relationships between the student profile, the use of functional analysis tools, their educational use, the interaction between the student and these tools, and, finally, the effectiveness of the student’s learning. The results of the analysis made it possible to highlight factors that promote the effectiveness of students’ learning of mechanical design using functional analysis tools.
References
[1]
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA) and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) (2014). StandardsforEducationalandPsychologicalTesting. APA.
[2]
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learningby Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approachto Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit.
[3]
Engeström, Y. (1999). Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective. ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),8, 63-93. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008648532192
[4]
Gueye, Y., Abouchadi, H., Abouelala, M., & Janan, M. T. (2020). Appropriation and Use of a Modelling and Simulation Tool in Mechanical Design Learning. AfricanJournalofResearchinMathematics,ScienceandTechnologyEducation,24, 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1860352
[5]
Gueye, Y., Abouelala, M., Agbanglanon, S. L., & Diagne, B. D. (2025). Evaluation des outils de modélisation dans l’apprentissage de la conception mécanique. Sciences-conf.org:raiffet2025:620998.
[6]
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What Are Cognitive Tools? In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen, & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive Tools for Learning (pp. 1-6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77222-1_1
[7]
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technologyas Cognitive Tools:Learnersas Designers.ITForum Paper 1 (pp. 67-80).
[8]
Lebahar, J. C. (2008). L’enseignement du design industriel: Entre art et technologie. Hermès-Lavoisier.
[9]
Léontiev, A. (1975/1984). Activité,conscience,personnalité (Trad. Geneviève Dupond et Gilber Molinier). Editions du Progrès.
[10]
Liu, M., Horton, L. R., Corliss, S. B., Svinicki, M. D., Bogard, T., Kim, J. et al. (2009). Students’ Problem Solving as Mediated by Their Cognitive Tool Use: A Study of Tool Use Patterns. JournalofEducationalComputingResearch,40, 111-139. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.40.1.e
[11]
Oosterman, B. J. (2001). Improving Product Development Projects by Matching Product Architecture and Organization. Thesis Fully Internal (DIV), University of Groningen.
[12]
Osiurak, F., Navarro, J., Reynaud, E., & Thomas, G. (2018). Tools Don’t—and Won’t—Make the Man: A Cognitive Look at the Future. JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,147, 782-788. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000432
[13]
Parks, S. (2000). Same Task, Different Activities: Issues of Investment Identity, and Use of Strategy. TESLCanadaJournal,17, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v17i2.890
[14]
Pellerin, G. (2015). Les technologies numériques pour l’enseignement: Usages, dispositifs et genèses [Recension]. FormationetProfession,23, 92.
[15]
Rabardel, P. (1995). Leshommesetlestechnologies,uneapprochecognitivesdesinstrumentscontemporains. Armand Colin.
[16]
Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing Information In-the-World: Metacognition and Cognitive Offloading in a Short-Term Memory Task. ConsciousnessandCognition,36, 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.05.014
[17]
Simon, H. A. (1991). Sciencesdessystèmes.Sciencesdel’artificiel. Dunod.
[18]
Tricot, A., Plégat-Soutjis, F., Camps, J.-F., Amiel, A., Lutz, G., & Morcillo, A. (2003). Utilité, utilisabilité, acceptabilité: Interpréter les relations entre dimensions de l’évaluation des EIAH. In C. Desmoulins, P. Marquet, & D. Bouhineau (Eds.), Environnementsinformatiquespourl’apprentissagehumain (pp. 391-402). ATIEF/INRP.
[19]
Virgo, J., Pillon, J., Navarro, J., Reynaud, E., & Osiurak, F. (2017). Are You Sure You’re Faster When Using a Cognitive Tool? The American Journal of Psychology, 130, 493-503. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.4.0493
[20]
Vygotsky, L. (1985). Penséeetlangage. Éditions Sociales.